New historical fiction on Alexander and friends

[system1988]

"...Let s see let s see... What would make my son understand my absolute authority as a King ? Whatever means i have used so far has failed ! EUREKA ! I will put my left hand between his thighs that will keep rising ...He will understand the message won t he ? Or maybe not ?( because he is also a bit of an idiot regarding matters of sexual nature ) Or do i need to go further ? After all why not ? He is a beautiful gay ! "



Please .

[sikander]

Greetings,

Interesting. It's obvious that you read the book in an entirely different way, seeing a worse scenario than I did. And nothing was said about being "gay"... the word isn't even in the book, because 1) the word wasn't in the culture (although sexual behaviors between men and boys, men and men were), and the modern political/religious divide wasn't there, 2) that is not the focus of the story and 3) it's obvious that Philip had no intention to actually sexually assault Alexander- it was a ploy. Nor was the theme behind the attack on Alexander about sex- it was about intimidation, using a terrible means to create the perception of threat to someone else and so on. Worse has been done by fathers in history when it comes to thrones.
But how a person reads, and what they read into a story- that's what makes a horse race.
Be that as it may, I plan to read the rest of the trilogy, because I feel the author makes the times and the characters come alive in all the ugliness and beauty of human nature.

Regards,
Sikander

[Sweetmemory41]

I read that scene based on my understanding of the different bases of power (i.e., legitimate, reward, coercive, expert, and information).

I thought that Philip was using coercive power at its worst - demeaning, degrading, immoral, shocking - with the intention to subjugate, intimidate, and break Alexander. It was meant as the ultimate threat to break Alexander’s spirit, self-efficacy, and will. Philip was trying to push Alexander (to the max) to do something stupid so that he could remove him (Alexander) as a perceived threat.

Throughout the book, you see Philip exercising authority, which is legitimate power. (As the king, he had legitimate power in abundance.) Alexander never questioned it. It was when Philip turned coercive, Alexander started to feel fear (“the dark lord” episodes), mostly for Hephaestion. I thought that the “touching scene” was all about the demonstration of brute coercive power, intended to keep Alexander afraid for himself and Hephaestion, and the subsequent course of events proved it. (So challenging to write without giving away the storyline.)

In corporate anti-sexual harassment training in the U.S., one of the first premises is that sexual harassment is more about power than about sex. I processed that scene with that understanding and thought that while the author made Philip II too dark, it was done for a purpose. Like Sikander, I also thought that, it many ways, this book was a treatise in power, in all its forms. (It is also about friendship and the origin of the soul relationship between A and H.)

Anyway, we all process information based on our knowledge, backgrounds, experiences, and mental filters. It is what makes opinions about books/art fascinating.

[system1988]

Reply to Sicander
Greetings,

Regarding remark no 1 : When i mention the word 'gay' , i mean 'man' not 'gay man ' I am sorry if you took it that way. I am aware of the current bibliography on the subject ( very expencive hobby !) so i sincerely hope your teaching is aimed at younger readers. no 2: No it is not the focus of the story ,but it leaves a very bad impression on the narration .I think it irrevocably characterizes a gigantic personality like that of Philip , whose legacy incidentally, according to several historians ,architects and archaeologists overshadows that of his son .no 3 :I dont think that the author convinces the readers that the purpose of King Philip was intimidation -but even so it reduces the King to the level of an animal don t you think ?

It goes without saying that you will read the entire trilogy since you like it.Why not ?

[sikander]

Greetings ,

"Regarding remark no 1 : When i mention the word 'gay' , i mean 'man' not 'gay man ' I am sorry if you took it that way. I am aware of the current bibliography on the subject ( very expencive hobby !) so i sincerely hope your teaching is aimed at younger readers. "

Hmm, my comment was referencing your use of the word, <shrug>

"no 2: No it is not the focus of the story ,but it leaves a very bad impression on the narration .I think it irrevocably characterizes a gigantic personality like that of Philip , whose legacy incidentally, according to several historians ,architects and archaeologists overshadows that of his son"

I don't think it does. I, too, am aware of the views of certain historians, etc- and I have never denied Philip's legacy as a King in context of his times.

".no 3 :I dont think that the author convinces the readers that the purpose of King Philip was intimidation -but even so it reduces the King to the level of an animal don t you think ? "

I feel the intimidation factor -and the NON-completion of a thing- was plain. It was a deliberate ploy to force a reaction. No, I don't think it reduces Philip to an 'animal" (outside of the fact we are all animals). That kind of force and show of power is not rare in the human species, whether in families, communities or nations- tragic, but all too real. It is interesting how people can be so distressed over such a scene while being somewhat "accustomed" to scenes just as appalling- such as war, battle scenes, even individual murders, etc. And people seem seldom to question the intermarriage of uncles and nieces- perhaps it seems "less worrying".... but one wonders what the niece might have thought.

Regards,
Sikander

Regards,
Sikander

[Alexias]

Spoilers

I am struggling with this book. I am only up to page 91, and struggling to want to pick it up again.

First off, in the opening chapter we spend a lot of time investing in Hephaestion's great-grandmother's fears and his removal by his uncle (nothing about his mother's fears/grief). Then we switch to an infantile Alexander complaining that Hephaestion won't play with him. It turns out that Hephaestion's great-grandmother is dead and Hephaestion wants to go to her funeral. Was she murdered? We are shown nothing of Hephaestion's grief, his struggles to adjust to a new life with his uncle, and his great-grandmother's death is simply an excuse for Alexander to try to arrange an escape from the castle (in a rubbish cart) so they can go to her grave. No idea if they ever got there or not as we are not shown, and we are shown nothing more about this or Hephaestion's reactions. What was the point in starting with the tension of Hephaestion's great-grandmother if you are not going to follow up on it?

Hephaestion then disappears as we embark on a series of unconnected vignettes of Alexander acquiring new 'friends'. What was the point in starting with Hephaestion if we don't get to see Alexander through his eyes? We are constantly being told that Alexander is different and special, precocious, but we are not shown this, only told. He is constantly trying to escape, but there is no sense of real constraint on him, and the imaginary threats we are told of feel far more medieval than Homeric (I deliberately used 'castle' above). The lack of freedom Alexander has, and the constant asking for permission to take him anywhere, just doesn't feel right.

Then we move on to the episode where Philip, baulked of having sex with Olympias, goes to rape his seven year old son and is thwarted by Hephaestion waking up. Bizarre and unconvincing. If Philip wanted a child, he would have taken a slave, not his own son. There is no hint in the histories that he was that depraved, or a peodophile. And the episode has no consequences. We are not shown Philip avoiding his son, or experiencing regret or anything. And the boys don't know it was him, so why put the episode in?

Olympias then murders a slave boy she saw Alexander talking to and forces Alexander to eat some of his heart. This sort of episode would have seriously unhinged Alexander, but we are shown him fawning all over his mother in fear that she will stop loving him. Surely he would recoil from her in revulsion and fear? I am not saying Olympias wasn't capable of something like this, but surely she wouldn't risk damaging her son like this?

And then again, the episode has no consequences. The next chapter jumps two years in the future with a boring discussion on Amphipolis. What was the point in racking up all that tension if you aren't going to use it? This is the point at which I have got stuck.

If the author is out there, I would love to know what his thoughts are. The history and fitting the jigsaw pieces of Alexander's character seem to take precedence over painting a convincing and engaging picture. We haven't yet seen this Alexander from the inside.

[sikander]

Greetings,

This was an interesting review.

"First off, in the opening chapter we spend a lot of time investing in Hephaestion's great-grandmother's fears and his removal by his uncle (nothing about his mother's fears/grief). Then we switch to an infantile Alexander complaining that Hephaestion won't play with him. It turns out that Hephaestion's great-grandmother is dead and Hephaestion wants to go to her funeral. Was she murdered? "

I think the author covers the important points well, introducing historical details and persons that are not central to the story and briefly, but not dragging the scenes out. There are many characters in the tale and not all of them are important. The older woman's POV was the one that mattered, not Hephaestion's mother. And the great-grandmother's death by heart attack/old age is implied in the line "for in her chest a pain was growing and she knew she would not live to see the boy again." Sometimes, a thing does not have to be stated to be understood.

"We are shown nothing of Hephaestion's grief, his struggles to adjust to a new life with his uncle, and his great-grandmother's death is simply an excuse for Alexander to try to arrange an escape from the castle (in a rubbish cart) so they can go to her grave. No idea if they ever got there or not as we are not shown, and we are shown nothing more about this or Hephaestion's reactions. What was the point in starting with the tension of Hephaestion's great-grandmother if you are not going to follow up on it?"

IMO, the author made an artistic choice NOT to dwell on Hephaestion's grief- children are often more resilient than we think, they don't usually dwell on grief like adults do- and while the author DOES address Hephaestion's unhappiness in the scene at the pool, his wanting to go back home, his unhappiness at his uncle's house, Philip mentioning his crying, etc, it is not the story the author wanted to tell.

"Hephaestion then disappears as we embark on a series of unconnected vignettes of Alexander acquiring new 'friends'. What was the point in starting with Hephaestion if we don't get to see Alexander through his eyes? We are constantly being told that Alexander is different and special, precocious, but we are not shown this, only told. He is constantly trying to escape, but there is no sense of real constraint on him, and the imaginary threats we are told of feel far more medieval than Homeric (I deliberately used 'castle' above). The lack of freedom Alexander has, and the constant asking for permission to take him anywhere, just doesn't feel right."

The point of the bits on acquiring friends is obviously to introduce the major characters in the story to come. Hephaestion is still seen in several scenes in the chapters, as he is still there, and interacts with Alexander, and the fears are not imaginary but are real- the threat from other people is built up through the conversations of children, interactions with them- children who are ALSO the children of potential rivals to the throne. I thought that was handled well without making it a tale of and for children. The underlying current of reality in their world is being built by the author without making it a dramatic focus.

"Then we move on to the episode where Philip, baulked of having sex with Olympias, goes to rape his seven year old son and is thwarted by Hephaestion waking up. Bizarre and unconvincing. If Philip wanted a child, he would have taken a slave, not his own son. There is no hint in the histories that he was that depraved, or a peodophile. And the episode has no consequences. We are not shown Philip avoiding his son, or experiencing regret or anything. And the boys don't know it was him, so why put the episode in?"

Having worked with hundreds of children in bad situations, this was a believable plot for me. Drunk people are capable of things they would never do otherwise, and they give no thought at the time to consequences. And often, people who have done a wrong thing deny their guilt or blame by transferring that onto the object of their guilt. It's not depravity or pedophilia- it's drunkenness, coupled with anger and opportunity. Alexander is shown to be affected in the scene with his mother. The next chapter takes us to a year later; there is no need to drag us through a few months of dealing with that incident, since 1) nothing happened and 2) had Philip come awake sober and realized what he'd done, he would not have addressed it for the reasons above. And history does not show him as a man who apologized for his actions.

"Olympias then murders a slave boy she saw Alexander talking to and forces Alexander to eat some of his heart. This sort of episode would have seriously unhinged Alexander, but we are shown him fawning all over his mother in fear that she will stop loving him. Surely he would recoil from her in revulsion and fear? I am not saying Olympias wasn't capable of something like this, but surely she wouldn't risk damaging her son like this?"

I understand that reaction. I read it as a device to introduce the mysticism of the times, the reality of the gods and goddesses (in reality, trauma plays with people's minds) and we are also told that it might not have been what Alexander thought it was- and it also plays on the idea that kings cannot afford friends from a certain level of society, repeating the question surrounding Kleon from an earlier chapter.

"And then again, the episode has no consequences. The next chapter jumps two years in the future with a boring discussion on Amphipolis. What was the point in racking up all that tension if you aren't going to use it? This is the point at which I have got stuck."

I think this book is written in a style similar to Dumas- with early episodes being drawn into play later, fleshed out. Because I am familiar with the style, I was comfortable with it.

"If the author is out there, I would love to know what his thoughts are. The history and fitting the jigsaw pieces of Alexander's character seem to take precedence over painting a convincing and engaging picture. We haven't yet seen this Alexander from the inside."

I asked the author about joining Pothos. I wonder if the author DID finally join, if they would feel inclined to "defend" the book, anymore than any other author would! Each person reads differently and wants a different story, each reader brings his or her own biases into the book they read. However, the author has provided a link to their website in the book, so perhaps those with questions could go there and ask? It doesn't hurt to try.

Ah well, that's what makes a horse race, as I've said. I have read fictional accounts that spent pages upon pages on battle scenes, or with Alexander being a megalomaniac or a one-dimensional character, or written like a modern boy/man in a world designed after the modern world with no regard to the age or culture he lived in; I liked this one because the many facets of the human condition have been explored and each character is given individual personalities that are slowly built upon and developed.

Regards,
Sikander

[Alexias]

Thanks for your reply on this. I am aware of why the author made the choices he did - for example, the racy opening scene is designed as a hook to pull the reader in, to show him that this is a dangerous world and that the novel is not one for children. However, for me the narrative failed to deliver on the hook and the expectations raised in this chapter. An author must fulfil any expectations they raise or they will fail to engage the reader.

I am not saying that this is a bad novel, it is well written but I feel that the overall narrative could do with tightening and the direction made clearer. I will finish it as I don't like giving up on books, but I cannot yet say that I am engaged with it. Perhaps I will contact the author once I finally finish it if I have any questions that I cannot answer.

I am not sure if you edited your post about the author trying to join pothos and getting a message about not be able to join. There was a forum on Alexander that gives the response you mentioned, but it has been closed for about 12 years. There are no restrictions on joining pothos - we get plenty of joiners, most of them spammers. The only restriction is that a new member's post are moderated to protect the site from spam.

[sikander]

Greetings Alexias,

"Thanks for your reply on this. I am aware of why the author made the choices he did - for example, the racy opening scene is designed as a hook to pull the reader in, to show him that this is a dangerous world and that the novel is not one for children. However, for me the narrative failed to deliver on the hook and the expectations raised in this chapter. An author must fulfil any expectations they raise or they will fail to engage the reader."

I suppose I take the view that NO author can write for everyone and expectations differ. Racy opening scene? Not sure I would consider it racy. However, I could see what the author was doing with the first chapter, in keeping the boy unnamed (I assumed he would come into the story later).

"I am not saying that this is a bad novel, it is well written but I feel that the overall narrative could do with tightening and the direction made clearer. I will finish it as I don't like giving up on books, but I cannot yet say that I am engaged with it. Perhaps I will contact the author once I finally finish it if I have any questions that I cannot answer."

I appreciated the quality of the writing.

"I am not sure if you edited your post about the author trying to join pothos and getting a message about not be able to join. There was a forum on Alexander that gives the response you mentioned, but it has been closed for about 12 years. "

I did, since I felt I may have been misquoting- it's been a while, as I said. However, I sent you a private message about the site acting up when *I* tried to post- it kept saying I was not logged in. Altho considering the age of my computer and system being used, the problem could well be on my end.

" There are no restrictions on joining pothos - we get plenty of joiners, most of them spammers. The only restriction is that a new member's post are moderated to protect the site from spam."

I have always understood that, which is why it was puzzling, and then I ran into a posting problem, so thought "If it happens to me, it may well have happened before to someone else"... ah, technology!

As a moderator, I understood the spammer issue. But so far, you've done a good job of keeping on it! By the time I check the site, most of it has been handled.

Regards,
Sikander